Letters to AASP
An Interview with
Thomas F. Coleman
|
|
July - September 2000 |
|
| Here are some of the letters we have
received, either directly, or through one of the list-serve groups we subscribe to.
We receive many letters and e-mail messages each week and publish those which are the most
interesting. September 18, 2000 Politicians should broaden
"family" remarks to include everyone AASP is steadily and successfully striving to change the state of singles suffering slavery in silence to the state of silencing the slavery that singles are suffering. AASP, truth, and justice are on the march! Sincerely, September 10, 2000 Airlines are unfair by excluding heterosexual couples from their domestic partner benefits plans I am an employee of a major airline. Last night while at work I picked up a copy of our company's newspaper that comes out approximately once a month. While reading an article on enhanced benefits, I came upon a paragraph pertaining to Domestic Partners Eligible for Travel Privileges. Being that I have been living with the same person for about nine years and we have a seven year old son , this was of interest to me. Up until this time there have been no Domestic Partner Benefits for employees of my company. It has been talked about for the last year and a half but nothing had really ever come of it. The article stated that as of July 1, 2000 travel benefits were being extended to domestic partners and that to date 500 employees had registered for travel and that the benefit was extended to same sex and opposite sex partners and that we were to contact the benefits department for an enrollment and registration packet. That alone irritated me because this policy had been in effect since July 1, 2000 and we were never formally notified of this policy. My company employs more than 45,000 employees systemwide and they are saying only 500 employees have signed up for this benefit. Obviously not many employees knew about this. As I continued to read my blood really started to boil. It then went on to state that during the October benefits open enrollment period, health benefits would be extended to SAME sex partners ONLY. I just couldn't believe that they were telling us that opposite sex partners could have travel benefits but we had to be gay to have health benefits. I brought the article to the attention of a few other employees and they also were infuriated. It just doesn't seem right! It seems that there is some kind of discrimination going on here. We are now wondering if it is legal, and what we can do about it. We do belong to a union, the CWA, and are wondering if they had any part in this or can do anything about it. First we decided to call the Benefits deptartment on Monday to see if that is truly the policy and if it is,to then contact a union steward and from there to get legal advise. When I got home from work I went on line to research this issue and came upon your web site. I found the site very informative and decided to write to you to see if you had any suggestions on how to proceed with this issue. With my employer having such a large work force which I'm sure has many gay and lesbian employees and many single emplyees with opposite sex domestic partners, that there is surely something that we could do to have them reconsider this policy. Please email me with any suggestions or feedback. It would be
greatly appreciated. September 9, 2000 AASP is a starting point for a singles' rights movement I found out about your organization after reading the New York Times article of 27 August 2000 ("O, To Be Single and Have a Politician Pay Attention") and was eager to join. I have longed for some time for an organization that took on issues of importance to single people, regardless of sexual orientation. The issue of single's rights has been overlooked for far too long. Too many people, particularly married people, seem to believe that single people have no issues because they believe we have "no responsibilities." It is time to put this misconceptions to bed once and for all. Many single people are tasked to take care of ailing parents because their married siblings assume they have "no responsibilities." Single people pay for public schools through their property taxes (we also buy houses) which fund the vast part of education spending in this country (school voucher programs, not good for singles; think about it). The marriage tax penalty debate took place with very little mention of the fact that the single's tax penalty still exists. If the AASP becomes only half as powerful as the AARP, no one will be able to ignore our issues. But it will take all single people, gay or straight, and anyone else who does not live the "traditional " description of family, to recognize our own value and defend it. This organization is a good place to start. Terry D.
Tax code should be neutral on marital
status Congratulations to M. MacGuineas and you (Open Forum, Aug. 31) for getting into print the only reasonable view on marriage tax policy. The only fair marriage tax policy is no marriage tax policy. Marriage is not -- repeat, not -- a taxable event, one way or another. Somehow, in their penchant for social engineering, the politicians decided to ``help'' marriages, and as usual, screwed it up. One person, one Social Security number, one tax return.
Period. No single, married, head of household, etc., etc. September 2, 2000 Biggest issue for this single is education subsidy Biggest issue: Underwriting the cost of other people's children's education (which we should pay into but not as much) and then being told we must also underwrite tax breaks for their parents. That means I pay more taxes, and while I think it's right and proper to fund Head Start and other initiatives which are good for little human beings, somewhere I'd like someone to recognize I am not a bottomless pit to pay for other people's families when I can't afford to have one of my own. Thanks Rosie September 1, 2000 Newspaper columnist accepts honorary membership Thanks very much for your kind words re: Gore and single people. ("Gore's Unfair to Single People: he claims to love 'working families' -- but leaves out the unmarried," National Review, August 31, 2000.) I had a feeling there was a group like yours. Now I know it exists. I would be happy to become an honorary member! Anyway, I support your cause. If people get married, fine. But for those of us who are not or will not be married, it would be nice if politicians would stop treating us like criminals or freaks. And if they insist on doing that, they at least should be decent enough to stop taking our money. Best wishes, August 30, 2000 If only more single people knew about AASP I was pleased to read the article in the NY Times about yur organization. I have been looking for a few months to join an organization retaining the primary purpose of eliminating the discrimination against single peoples in the areas of the tax code, pension and social security benefits, and employer health care benefits. My only regret is that your organization is not more apparent to the public at large. I surmise that your membership rolls would substantially increase if the vast majority of single persons of the country were even aware of your existence. Mr. J.K. August 28, 2000 Unmarried voter upset by presidential candidates I heard of your organization in the NY Times Week in Review section of Aug. 27. (Oh, To be Single and Have a Politician Pay Attention, by K.A. Dilday) After researching the presidential candidates a few weeks ago, I thought of not voting because I didn't feel represented by either. I will look further into your organization. Thank you. Mary Jane August 3, 2000 Health coverage for domestic partners in Florida Been searching the web endlessly with no luck. Found your site. We are a heterosexual couple living in Florida with no plans on getting married. We each have health insurance not sponsored by our employer. Is it possible to get health insurance together in this state and if so, what companies? We both have Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Options now........ Thanking you in advance and keep up the good work! Enjoyed your site. Kelli July 27, 2000 Stop the Stigma Campaign materials for chief judges E-mail to AASP Friends, I have a letter from Thomas F. Coleman asking that I advise the Council of Chief Judges of Courts of Appeal of which I currently am chair of the above campaign. I have today e-mailed information, including the address of your website, to the executive council of our organization. Our annual meeting is in Seattle in November and we generally have about 100 chief judges in attendance. If you wish, I would be glad to distribute additional copies of "Stop the Stigma" f you would mail them to me. I will also copy and make available a copy of your information to the eight other judges on the Iowa Court of Appeal. Honorable Rosemary Shaw Sackett July 17, 2000 Judges association willing to consider a resolution Dear Mr. Coleman, Thank you for your 7/13/00 [letter] wherein you requested that the AJA Resolutions Committee consider a resolution to stop the stigma to children born to unmarried parents. Please prepare a proposed resolution and have it submitted to me by a member of the Judiciary for Committee discussion at AJA's 9/10/00, Mid-Year Conference. Judge Ira J. Raab, Chair July 25, 2000 Social security and IRA laws are unfair to singles Just a comment: Are you aware that if you're a single worker paying into social security like everyone else, you get nothing when you die; yet if you are married, your spouse or your children receive $257 for burial. Discrimination for sure. Also, a housewife who doesn't work as a paid employee outside of the home can put $2,000 into an IRA if her husband works. Yet, the single person can only put in $2,000 total. Why can't a single person put in $4,000 if working since the person who is not working can put in $2,000? Thanks for letting me share my frustrations. Unsigned postcard. July 17, 2000 Bill to repeal of "marriage
penalty" is unfair for singles A letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times says: MIKE VARADY July 11, 2000 President of American Judges Association calls our Stop the Stigma Campaign "a worthy cause" Thank you for your correspondence; you have a worthy cause
and we wish you well in your effort. If you have any further specific questions please feel free
to contact me further.
Go to Letters Received between January - June 2000
|